Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Proposed Constitutional amendments?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MeekandMild, Feb 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    I was listening to my favorite radio shock jock, Michael Savage and was surprised to hear him suggest a rational Constitutional amendment.

    He suggested that anyone who receives a government check be removed from the voter rolls.

    With this in mind I thought of a few more good amendments, considering that we have better electronic communication from coast to coast than the people of Boston had in 1776 from one street to another:

    1: Legislative salary increases must be approved by voter referendum.
    2: Federal judges must retire at age 70 and must be approved by referendum.
    3: Taxes must be approved by voter referendum.
    4: Public schools must teach rifle marksmanship as part of a Civics course.

    Any other suggestions?
     
  2. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,523
    Location:
    Where the one eyed man is king
    Well there's a real compassionate man.

    Anyone who gets a tax return, is a government employee or who is on the GI Bill can be struck from the voter rolls as well. After all, they're all getting government checks. This will leave the political system entirely in the hands of the very affluent, where of course it belongs.
     
  3. FPrice

    FPrice Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,380
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    "He suggested that anyone who receives a government check be removed from the voter rolls."

    Kinda places him at odds with Robert Heinlein who wrote an outstanding novel in which government (military) service is REQUIRED in order to be placed on the voting rolls.
     
  4. HunterGatherer

    HunterGatherer member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    379
    I guess you guys are trying to make believe that you don't know what is meant by "government check". Here is a little clue:

    Check for being a soldier = OK

    Check for being a couch tater = NO VOTE FOR YOU! [/soupnazi]
    Starship Troopers
     
  5. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    anyone who receives a governement check be removed from the voter rolls.

    The idea is so bad on its face that I can't believe Savage even suggested it.

    The congress would shoot that idea down in committee faster than an eye-blink-they draw a federal check.

    I don't think this idea would fly with the millions of service connected disabled veterans in this country, let alone the people currently on active or reserve duty.

    Even ex felons are getting their voting rights back-some obsure notion mentioned in a minor document squawking about no taxation without representation.

    Not having heard the show, would he be talking about people on welfare for a generation or two?
     
  6. HunterGatherer

    HunterGatherer member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    379
    BINGO!
     
  7. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Okay-if Savage is talking about the welfare generation, I certainly understand his anger.

    However, I am very reluctant to give the government any more power than it has already, and to deny the right to vote turns a citizen into a subject.

    I don't see where that is going to solve the problem-whats needed is REAL welfare reform, not because its popular with the tax payers, but because its the right thing to do.

    Come to think of it-whats called for here is politician reform:cuss:

    From what I see, you could take the vast majority of the dems and repubs and form a new party. We could call it the no-guts party, or the latest poll party.

    The right to vote is one of the last rights the government has yet to screw up, and I don't want to give them an opening.
     
  8. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    The "receiving a check" presumably excludes overpayment refunds (returning $5 after confiscating $10,005 does not count as benifiting from the gov't).

    Money exchanges between taxpayers & gov't. Better cutoff point may be when the net exchange benefits the taxpayer, i.e. the point where the gov't is arguably buying votes.

    HOWEVER, methinks this line of reasoning is improper. Every citizen gets a vote, period. Instead of an amendment, insist that the gov't actually follow the Constitution, which does NOT allow for rob-Peter-pay-Paul-for-votes.

    The Constitution is fine as-is. So long as legislators/executives/judges ignore it, adding more verbage to it won't help.
     
  9. HunterGatherer

    HunterGatherer member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    379
    Example # 1,087,596,943 that the simplest solution is often best.
     
  10. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    Thankyou HunterGatherer. I was out doing some yard work during the first flurry of replies.

    Obviously, he was talking about welfare checks people. Duh.
     
  11. Bruce H

    Bruce H Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    North Mo.
    Representatives and Senators have one term only. They may run again after eighteen years. This would clear out professionals. Staffs would be cut to three maximum. Pay would be fourty thousand.


    Michael Savage and rocks have a lot in common.
     
  12. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    I guess Savage is getting tired of living in a republic and wants us to move more towards a pure democracy. :rolleyes:

    That said, I do believe that people who receive money from the government (that's us, by the way) without providing a past or present service in exchange SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. They will only ever vote for politicians who promise them more money for less effort, and it amounts to nothing more than glorified theft on their part. Yes, it's stealing, plain and simple. The fact that the government is acting as the middle man doesn't make it less so.
     
  13. FPrice

    FPrice Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,380
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    "I guess you guys are trying to make believe that you don't know what is meant by "government check". Here is a little clue:"

    No make believe, just a case of a bad descriptive term. If he meant welfare check, someone should have said welfare check.

    BTW I have known people who were self-employed who looked down on others who worked for a company OR the government. They truly believed that self-employed people were better than others.

    Now that we have THAT straightened out, it's still not a real good idea. How about those people who through no fault of their own need the help? Do we discriminate against them?

    For the record, my mom needed welfare for a few years to take care of me and my sister. She was able to get off welfare eventually but I would sure have hated for her to be considered a second-class citizen during that time.
     
  14. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Easy way around that-say what you mean.
     
  15. spartacus2002

    spartacus2002 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,578
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
    How about making US citizenship contingent upon having one or both of your parents US citizens, and removing the "if you're born inside our borders, regardless of your parents nationality, you're a citizen" amendment?

    Would stop the anchor-baby syndrome.
     
  16. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    How about an amendment requiring the federal government to actually follow the Constitution?:D
     
  17. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    How bout an amendment to shut Savage up

    WildaddhowardsterntothatruletooAlaska
     
  18. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Public Horsewhipping for any elected official who violates the Bill of Rights.
     
  19. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,994
    Only one. Fix the # of Supreme Court justices to the present #. That way the court can't be threatened by the Executive branch like it was by Roosevelt.
     
  20. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    I'd gladly have MY elderly mother and disabled sister lose their voting rights, since both are rabidly liberal and always vote for the biggest pie-in-the-sky candidates which I have to pay for.

    But this gives me a better idea than Savage's. I'd be more than happy to pay their living expenses instead of them having government support...in return for full tax credits for their care. If I could pay for their care instead of paying a government which skims 30% off the top for administrative charges they would be better off.

    Considering the original intent was to have only heads of household allowed to vote I think this is an elegent solution. :cool:


    BTW, there are already many countries which do not allow children of transients to become citizens. This sounds like a great idea.
     
  21. TimRB

    TimRB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    CA
    I have always thought that a nice constitutional provision would be something along the lines that no new law could be enacted when it can be shown that an existing law already does the job.

    Tim
     
  22. LawDog

    LawDog Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,101
    President LawDog's Amendments to the US Constitution:

    Amendment XXVIII:

    Amendment II shall henceforth read in whole: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Amendment XXIX:

    Each law passed by Congress shall expire at the tenth year anniversary of the ratification of that law.

    Amendment XXX:

    If one-half plus one of voting citizenry sign a petition demanding such, any member of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch of the Federal Government shall immediately place his name on a ballot in the month following such petition. Should 2/3's of the voters cast a vote of 'No Confidence' on that ballot, then said offical shall be immediately removed from office.

    Amendment XXXI:

    If one-half plus one of voting citizenry sign a petition demanding such, any Federal Law shall be immediately placed on a ballot in the month following such petition. Should 2/3 of the voters cast a vote of 'No Confidence' on that ballot, then said law shall be immediately rendered null and stricken from Federal rolls.

    That should about do it.

    LawDog
     
  23. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    President Lawdog, how about, a la Heinlein, adding a House of Repeal to the U.S. Congress. If 1/3 or more of the chamber votes to repeal the law, it is stricken from the U.S.C.

    That should give Congress paws.
     
  24. LawDog

    LawDog Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,101
    Hell, I forgot:

    Amendment XXXII:

    The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Attorney General El Tejon, your idea has merit, alas its implementation would result in another set of Congresscritters leeching about sucking down tax money.

    Vetoed.

    I would however, appreciate a legal ruling please.

    Bearing that Senators and Congresscritters may not be arrested while Congress is in session, can I legally challenge Ted Kennedy to a duel while Congress is in session?

    If not, does the 'no arrest' clause also extend to the President while Congress is in session? In other words, can I shoot the next SOB who sends me a blatantly unConstitutional bill?

    Thank you,

    President LawDog
     
  25. morganm01

    morganm01 Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    317
    If your a citizen, you vote.

    How about getting a drug test if you are on the govt. dole instead.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page